Case: 17-70810, 09/15/2020, ID: 11825368, DktEntry: 233, Page 1 of 101
`
`Case Nos. 17-70810, 17-70817
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`
`
`
`NATIONAL FAMILY FARM COALITION, et al.,
`Petitioners,
`v.
`UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al.,
`Respondents,
`DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC,
`Respondent-Intervenor.
`
`NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`v.
`SCOTT PRUITT, et al.,
`Respondents,
`DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC,
`Respondent-Intervenor.
`
`On Petition for Review from the
`United States Environmental Protection Agency
`
`PETITIONERS’ PETITION FOR REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC
`
`
`CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY
`George A. Kimbrell
`Amy Van Saun
`Sylvia Shih-Yau Wu
`2009 NE Alberta Street, Suite 207
`Portland, OR 97211
`T: (971) 271-7372
`gkimbrell@centerforfoodsafety.org
`avansaun@centerforfoodsafety.org
`swu@centerforfoodsafety.org
`
`
`CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL
`DIVERSITY
`Stephanie M. Parent
`PO Box 11374
`Portland, OR 97211
`T: (971) 717-6404
`sparent@biologicaldiversity.org
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for Petitioners National Family Farm Coalition, et al.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 17-70810, 09/15/2020, ID: 11825368, DktEntry: 233, Page 2 of 101
`
`
`
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, Petitioners National
`
`Family Farm Coalition, Family Farm Defenders, Beyond Pesticides, Center for
`
`Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety, and Pesticide Action Network North
`
`America certify that they have no parent corporations and that no publicly held
`
`corporation owns more than ten percent of the Petitioners.
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case: 17-70810, 09/15/2020, ID: 11825368, DktEntry: 233, Page 3 of 101
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT .......................................................... i
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................... ii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................... ii
`
`GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND TERMS ........................................................ vii
`
`RULE 35 STATEMENT ............................................................................................ 1
`
`PROCEDURAL HISTORY ....................................................................................... 2
`
`STATUTORY FRAMEWORK ................................................................................. 3
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`The “No Effect/May Affect” Standard ................................................. 4
`
`FIFRA and EPA’s “Risk Quotient” and “Levels of Concern”
`Modeling ................................................................................................ 5
`
`III. The 2013 National Academy of Sciences Report ................................. 6
`
`REASONS FOR GRANTING REHEARING EN BANC ....................................... 8
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`EPA’s Approach Violated the ESA. ...................................................... 8
`
`EPA’s “May Affect” Admissions Triggered Consultation. ................ 11
`
`III. EPA’s “No Effect” Determinations Were Arbitrary and
`Capricious. ........................................................................................... 13
`
`IV. The Decision is Contrary to Karuk Tribe. ......................................... 14
`
`V.
`
`The Majority Created a Dangerous New Loophole. .......................... 16
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................................................... 22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case: 17-70810, 09/15/2020, ID: 11825368, DktEntry: 233, Page 4 of 101
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`
`Center for Biological Diversity v. Bureau of Land Management,
`698 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2012) ............................................................................... 1
`
`Conner v. Burford,
`848 F.2d 1441 (9th Cir. 1988) ............................................................... 1, 3, 11, 18
`
`Cottonwood Envtl. Law Ctr. v. U.S. Forest Serv.,
`789 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2015) ............................................................................... 4
`
`Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Army Corps of Eng’rs,
`2015 WL 12659937 (C.D. Cal. 2015) ................................................................. 16
`
`Friends of Santa Clara River v. Army Corps of Engineers,
`887 F.3d 906 (9th Cir. 2018) ............................................................................... 16
`
`Karuk Tribe of California v. U.S. Forest Service,
`681 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2012) ........................................................................ passim
`
`League of Wilderness Defs. v. Connaughton,
`752 F.3d 755 (9th Cir. 2014) ............................................................................... 11
`
`California ex rel. Lockyer v. U.S. Dep’t of Agriculture,
`575 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2009) ......................................................................... 1, 3, 4
`
`Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
`463 U.S. 29 (1983) ............................................................................................... 17
`
`Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv.,
`524 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2008) ................................................................................. 6
`
`National Family Farm Coalition (NFFC) v. EPA,
`966 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2020) .......................................................................... passim
`
`Nw. Coal. for Alts. to Pesticides v. EPA,
`544 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2008) ............................................................................. 17
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case: 17-70810, 09/15/2020, ID: 11825368, DktEntry: 233, Page 5 of 101
`
`Federal Cases (Cont’d)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Pac. Rivers Council v. Thomas,
`30 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 1994) ................................................................................. 8
`
`Sierra Club v. EPA,
`671 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2012) ............................................................................... 19
`
`Tenn. Valley Auth. v. Hill,
`437 U.S. 153 (1978) ............................................................................................... 3
`
`W. Watersheds Project v. Kraayenbrink,
`632 F.3d 472 (9th Cir. 2011) ....................................................................... 1, 4, 16
`
`Washington Toxics Coal. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior,
`457 F. Supp. 2d 1158 (W.D. Wash. 2006) ............................................................ 8
`
`Washington Toxics Coalition v. EPA,
`413 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2005) ............................................................................... 1
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`7 U.S.C. § 136(bb) ....................................................................................................... 6
`
`16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2) ........................................................................................... 3, 11
`
`Regulations
`
`50 C.F.R. § 402.01(b) .............................................................................................. 3, 4
`
`50 C.F.R. § 402.13(a) ................................................................................................ 14
`
`50 C.F.R. § 402.14(a) .............................................................................................. 3, 4
`
`50 C.F.R. § 402.14(b)(1) ............................................................................................ 14
`
`50 C.F.R. § 402.14(h) .................................................................................................. 5
`
`Other Authorities
`
`U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., Nat’l Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin.,
`Interagency Cooperation—Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
`Amended; Final Rule, 51 Fed. Reg. 19,926, 19,949 (June 3, 1986) ...................... 4
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case: 17-70810, 09/15/2020, ID: 11825368, DktEntry: 233, Page 6 of 101
`
`Other Authorities (Cont’d)
`
`Page(s)
`
`U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., Nat’l Oceanic
`and Atmospheric Admin., Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
`and Plants; Regulations for Interagency Cooperation, 84 Fed. Reg.
`44,976, 45,000 (Aug. 27, 2019)............................................................................ 17
`
`U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, Chlorpyrifos Executive Summary,
`https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/nas/final/chlorpyrifos/executives
`ummary.docx ........................................................................................................ 19
`
`U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, EPA Releases Final Biological Evaluations of
`Three Chemicals’ Impacts on Endangered Species (Jan. 18, 2017),
`https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/epa-releases-final-biological-
`evaluations-three-chemicals-impacts-endangered-species ...................................... 19
`
`U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, Interim Approaches for National-Level Pesticide
`Endangered Species Act Assessments Based on the Recommendations of the
`National Academy of Sciences,
`https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
`07/documents/interagency.pdf .................................................................. 7, 11, 17
`
`U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, Isoxaflutole Registration (Mar. 25, 2020),
`https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-
`0398-0071 ............................................................................................................. 20
`
`U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, Malathion Executive Summary,
`https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/nas/final/malathion/executive-
`summary.docx ....................................................................................................... 19
`
`U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency et al., Interim Report to Congress, 20, 22 (Nov.
`2014), https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
`07/documents/esareporttocongress.pdf .............................................................. 19
`
`U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Consultation Handbook:
`Procedures for Conducting Consultation (1998),
`https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-
`library/pdf/esa_section7_handbook.pdf ......................................................... 4, 14
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case: 17-70810, 09/15/2020, ID: 11825368, DktEntry: 233, Page 7 of 101
`
`Other Authorities (Cont’d)
`
`Page(s)
`
`National Academy of Sciences Report (2013),
`https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18344/assessing-risks-to-endangered-
`and-threatened-species-from-pesticides ................................................................... 6
`
`U.S. Dep’t of Agric., Nat’l Agric. Statistics Serv., Crop Acreage (June 30, 2017),
`https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-
`esmis/files/j098zb09z/9306t159c/mg74qp76z/Acre-06-30-2017.pdf ................... 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case: 17-70810, 09/15/2020, ID: 11825368, DktEntry: 233, Page 8 of 101
`
`GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND TERMS
`
`Academy National Academy of Sciences
`
`APA
`
`EPA
`
`ESA
`
`
`
`
`
`Administrative Procedure Act
`
`Environmental Protection Agency
`
`Endangered Species Act
`
`FIFRA
`
`Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
`
`FWS
`
`LOC
`
`Fish and Wildlife Service
`
`Level of Concern
`
`LOC/RQ Level of Concern/Risk Quotient
`
`NMFS
`
`National Marine Fisheries Service
`
`NOAEL
`
`No Observed Adverse Effect Level
`
`NOEL
`
`RQ
`
`
`
`No Observed Effect Level
`
`Risk Quotient
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case: 17-70810, 09/15/2020, ID: 11825368, DktEntry: 233, Page 9 of 101
`
`RULE 35 STATEMENT
`
`Rehearing of National Family Farm Coalition (NFFC) v. EPA, 966 F.3d 893 (9th
`
`Cir. 2020) is warranted because:
`
`(A) The panel majority’s decision raises questions of exceptional importance.
`
`The decision allows over 500 endangered species spanning nearly 200 million acres
`
`to be exposed to a toxic pesticide without any Endangered Species Act (ESA)
`
`consultation. No court, in any jurisdiction, has ever held an agency approval of this
`
`type and magnitude could have absolutely no effect on any of hundreds of
`
`endangered species. Nor has any court previously permitted an agency in its ESA
`
`decision to rely on modeling and data that the National Academy of Sciences
`
`deemed “not scientifically defensible.”
`
`(B) The majority’s decision conflicts with the en banc decision of Karuk Tribe of
`
`California v. U.S. Forest Service, 681 F.3d 1006, 1027 (9th Cir. 2012), as well as Center
`
`for Biological Diversity v. Bureau of Land Management, 698 F.3d 1101, 1022 (9th Cir.
`
`2012), W. Watersheds Project v. Kraayenbrink, 632 F.3d 472, 496 (9th Cir. 2011),
`
`California ex rel. Lockyer v. U.S. Dep’t of Agriculture, 575 F.3d 999, 1018-19 (9th Cir.
`
`2009), Washington Toxics Coalition v. EPA, 413 F.3d 1024, 1032 (9th Cir. 2005), and
`
`Conner v. Burford, 848 F.2d 1441, 1454 (9th Cir. 1988). Rehearing is vital to secure
`
`and maintain uniformity.
`
`1
`
`
`

`

`Case: 17-70810, 09/15/2020, ID: 11825368, DktEntry: 233, Page 10 of 101
`
`PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`
`This case challenges EPA’s registration of Dow’s pesticide product “Enlist
`
`Duo,” comprised of two active ingredients: 2,4-D and glyphosate. ER1-36. It is a
`
`novel “new use” registration allowing direct spraying over-the-top of crops
`
`engineered to resist both pesticides. ER28. The registration covers soy, corn, and
`
`cotton grown across 34 states, totaling over 185 million acres.1 Federal regulators
`
`conservatively estimated the registration would increase 2,4-D use by 200 to 600
`
`percent. ER353, ER443.
`
`EPA recognized 2,4-D is toxic to plants, birds, and mammals. ER572,
`
`ER2063-67. EPA found 531 ESA-protected species and 184 critical habitats “inside
`
`the action area.” ER543, ER726-952. These included endangered mammals, birds,
`
`and plants, such as the whooping crane, Mexican wolf, and California condor. Id.
`
`Nonetheless, EPA concluded that its approval—to spray this toxic
`
`combination pesticide on millions of acres, in new ways, at new seasonal times, and
`
`dramatically increasing 2,4-D—could have absolutely no effects on any endangered
`
`species in or near sprayed fields. ER24-25. EPA disclaimed any obligation to
`
`undertake ESA consultation with the expert wildlife agencies.
`
`
`1 Nat’l Agric. Statistics Serv., Crop Acreage (June 30, 2017),
`https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-
`esmis/files/j098zb09z/9306t159c/mg74qp76z/Acre-06-30-2017.pdf.
`2
`
`
`

`

`Case: 17-70810, 09/15/2020, ID: 11825368, DktEntry: 233, Page 11 of 101
`
`The panel majority affirmed. Judge Watford dissented and would have held
`
`that EPA violated the ESA and vacated the registration.
`
`STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
`
`In the ESA, Congress spoke “in the plainest of words, making it abundantly
`
`clear that the balance has been struck in favor of affording endangered species the
`
`highest of priorities, thereby adopting a policy which it described as ‘institutionalized
`
`caution.’” Tenn. Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 194 (1978).
`
`Section 7, the ESA’s “heart,” Lockyer, 575 F.3d at 1018, mandates federal
`
`agencies “insure” their actions (here, EPA’s registration of Enlist Duo) are not likely
`
`to jeopardize any endangered species or adversely modify their critical habitat. 16
`
`U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2).
`
`In complying with Section 7 agencies must use the “best scientific and
`
`commercial data available,” id., and must “‘give the benefit of the doubt to the
`
`species,’” Conner, 848 F.2d at 1454 & n.31 (quoting ESA’s legislative history).
`
`
`
`Section 7(a)(2) and its regulations establish a process requiring EPA to
`
`evaluate the registration’s effects “in consultation and with the assistance of” the
`
`agencies that—unlike EPA—Congress designated as having special expertise in
`
`endangered species, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries
`
`Service. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2); 50 C.F.R. §§ 402.14(a), 402.01(b).
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`Case: 17-70810, 09/15/2020, ID: 11825368, DktEntry: 233, Page 12 of 101
`
`I.
`
`The “No Effect/May Affect” Standard
`
`At issue here is only the critical first consultation step: the Step 1 “No
`
`Effect/May Affect” threshold. If Enlist Duo “may affect” any endangered species or
`
`critical habitat, then EPA must consult. 50 C.F.R. §§ 402.14(a), 402.01(b). This
`
`Court, en banc in Karuk Tribe, defined the low threshold:
`
`[A]ctions that have any chance of affecting listed species or critical
`habitat—even if it is later determined that the actions are ‘not likely’ to
`do so—require at least some consultation under the ESA.
`
`681 F.3d at 1027 (emphases added). Further:
`
`
`Any possible effect, whether beneficial, benign, adverse or of an
`undetermined character triggers the requirement [for consultation].
`
`
`Id. (quoting Lockyer, 575 F.3d at 1018-19) (emphasis in Lockyer). Karuk Tribe
`
`enshrined en banc what the Court previously held, e.g., Kraayenbrink, 632 F.3d at
`
`496; Lockyer, 575 F.3d at 1018-19, and how the expert agencies define the threshold.
`
`51 Fed. Reg. 19,926, 19,949 (June 3, 1986).2 The intentional hair trigger to involve
`
`the expert agencies reflects the ESA’s “institutionalized caution” mandate.
`
`Cottonwood Envtl. Law Ctr. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 789 F.3d 1075, 1091 (9th Cir. 2015);
`
`Lockyer, 575 F.3d at 1018.
`
`
`2 FWS, Endangered Species Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting
`Consultation (1998) at xvi, at https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-
`library/pdf/esa_section7_handbook.pdf.
`
`4
`
`
`

`

`Case: 17-70810, 09/15/2020, ID: 11825368, DktEntry: 233, Page 13 of 101
`
`Consultation takes two forms, formal (Step 3) and informal (Step 2). In
`
`formal consultation, FWS issues a Biological Opinion analyzing if the action is likely
`
`to jeopardize the existence of species or adversely modify critical habitat. 50 C.F.R. §
`
`402.14(h). FWS provides “reasonable and prudent alternatives” to avoid jeopardy, or
`
`“reasonable and prudent measures” to minimize the impact of incidental take (no
`
`jeopardy). Id. § 402.14(g)-(h).
`
`Formal consultation is not required if, during informal consultation (Step 2),
`
`FWS concurs in writing that, while the agency action “may affect” a species or
`
`habitat, the action is “not likely to adversely affect” it. Id. § 402.13. “The burden
`
`imposed by the consultation requirement need not be great.” Karuk Tribe, 681 F.3d
`
`at 1029 (explaining “informal consultation need be nothing more than discussions
`
`and correspondence with the appropriate wildlife agency”).
`
`II.
`
`FIFRA and EPA’s “Risk Quotient” and “Levels of Concern” Modeling
`
`Here, EPA used a Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
`
`risk interpretation tool, its “Levels of Concern” (LOC), imported into the ESA
`
`context. ER18-19; ER2529. By its own terms, the LOC “interpretative policy” does
`
`not look for “no effect.” Rather, it is used to “indicate whether a pesticide, when
`
`used as directed, has the potential to cause adverse effects to non-target organisms.”
`
`ER18 (emphasis added), ER2529. EPA concluded “No Effect” whenever its Risk
`
`5
`
`
`

`

`Case: 17-70810, 09/15/2020, ID: 11825368, DktEntry: 233, Page 14 of 101
`
`Quotient (RQ), which is the measure of harm or mortality when a species is exposed
`
`to a certain pesticide amount, did not exceed its own LOC, which represents a level
`
`of adverse effect or mortality acceptable to EPA. ER18, ER2529; NFFC, 966 F.3d at
`
`923.
`
`EPA’s model makes sense only under FIFRA’s cost-benefit standard, where
`
`EPA need determine only if adverse effects are “unreasonable.” 7 U.S.C. § 136(bb).
`
`The ESA, designed to insure agencies do not push imperiled species to extinction,
`
`emphatically prohibits such cost-benefit balancing. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Nat’l Marine
`
`Fisheries Serv., 524 F.3d 917, 929 (9th Cir. 2008).
`
`III. The 2013 National Academy of Sciences Report
`
`To address continuing disagreements, EPA and the expert agencies requested
`
`the National Academy of Sciences (Academy) evaluate the best scientific data for
`
`assessing pesticides’ effects on endangered species. The 2013 Academy report has
`
`two relevant core conclusions. SBER001-195.3
`
`First, in reviewing EPA’s approach, the Academy resoundingly rejected the
`
`“Level of Concern/Risk Quotient” (LOC/RQ) process EPA applied here,
`
`concluding that it is “not scientifically defensible for assessing the risks to listed species
`
`
`3 Also available at https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18344/assessing-risks-to-
`
`endangered-and-threatened-species-from-pesticides.
`
`6
`
`
`

`

`Case: 17-70810, 09/15/2020, ID: 11825368, DktEntry: 233, Page 15 of 101
`
`posed by pesticides . . . .” SBER034 (emphasis added); SBER168-69 (criticizing
`
`EPA’s approach as making assumptions that are “not reliable;” with “unpredictable
`
`performance outcomes;” and as “not appropriate for assessments for listed species”).
`
`Instead, at Steps 2/3 of consultation, the Academy recommended EPA apply a
`
`“probabilistic approach that requires integration of the uncertainties.” SBER034.
`
`Second, regarding Step 1, the Academy concluded that any potential exposure
`
`triggers “May Affect.” Because of pesticides’ inherent toxicity and the species
`
`expertise required for broad and unique ESA analyses, EPA should proceed to Step
`
`2 and at least informally consult if there is geographic overlap between the
`
`pesticide’s potential use and species’ habitats. SBER028 (“If area overlaps are
`
`identified in Step 1, EPA would confer with the Services”); SBER072 (same);
`
`SBER048 (consequently some consultation “almost always” triggered for outdoor
`
`pesticides).4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4 EPA subsequently agreed to overlap as the “May Affect” trigger. EPA, Interim
`Approaches for National-Level Pesticide Endangered Species Act Assessments Based on the
`Recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences, at 2 (Figure 1), 4 at
`https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/interagency.pdf.
`
`7
`
`
`

`

`Case: 17-70810, 09/15/2020, ID: 11825368, DktEntry: 233, Page 16 of 101
`
`REASONS FOR GRANTING REHEARING EN BANC
`
`
`
`EPA violated the ESA in two core, interrelated ways. EPA vitiated the ESA’s
`
`best science mandate and made arbitrary and capricious “No Effect” findings,
`
`because its model and resulting data were not reliable, appropriate, or even
`
`defensible for ESA assessments. That approach also meant EPA substituted an
`
`unlawful legal standard for the ESA’s very low “May Affect” Step 1 consultation
`
`threshold. These errors allowed EPA to make its unprecedented “No Effect”
`
`conclusion and warrant rehearing.
`
`I.
`
`
`
`EPA’s Approach Violated the ESA.
`
`EPA’s LOC/RQ model is geared for “adverse effects,” not no effects; that is
`
`the wrong Step 1 threshold. ER18; ER2529; Karuk Tribe, 681 F.3d at 1027. “Not
`
`Likely to Adversely Affect” is Step 2 of the process, requiring informal consultation
`
`and FWS concurrence. Pac. Rivers Council v. Thomas, 30 F.3d 1050, 1054 n.8 (9th
`
`Cir. 1994).5 The majority erred in letting EPA substitute FIFRA’s less protective
`
`standards for the ESA’s. Washington Toxics Coal. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 457 F. Supp.
`
`2d 1158, 1179-80, 1184 (W.D. Wash. 2006) (rejecting earlier rulemaking effort to
`
`
`5 Of 531 species, EPA informally consulted on one (eskimo curlew). FWS
`concurred because the bird is presumed already extinct, not because Enlist Duo
`exposures would be innocuous. SER432-434. For 3 geographically limited species,
`EPA prohibited use in their counties to avoid effects. ER544-45.
`
`8
`
`
`

`

`Case: 17-70810, 09/15/2020, ID: 11825368, DktEntry: 233, Page 17 of 101
`
`circumvent consultation similarly, explaining “[t]he risk framework of FIFRA (no
`
`unreasonable adverse effects) does not equate to the survival and recovery framework
`
`of the ESA”).
`
`
`
`The majority acknowledged EPA applied FIFRA’s “unreasonable adverse
`
`effects” LOC/RQ model, but claimed EPA used “much more conservative
`
`assumptions” for ESA species. NFFC, 966 F.3d at 923. This is inaccurate.
`
`
`
`First and fundamentally, EPA’s assumptions cannot be deemed “conservative”
`
`because, as the Academy explained, they are fundamentally flawed, “not [even]
`
`scientifically defensible.” SBER034. The EPA model is not properly probabilistic,
`
`does not account for the full range of pesticide harms, and does not incorporate
`
`uncertainties, rendering it “not appropriate” and “not reliable.” SBER168-69; NFFC,
`
`966 F.3d at 933 (“No matter how conservative its thresholds, EPA will be
`
`interpreting an unreliable metric of risk.”) (Watford, J., dissenting). Furthermore,
`
`the levels (LOCs) set to trigger consultation are not calculated scientific
`
`measurements; they are EPA’s self-described “interpretative policy” for determining
`
`whether certain adverse effects are unreasonable (“of concern”) or not. ER2529;
`
`NFFC, 966 F.3d at 934 (LOC/RQ “does not qualify as ‘scientific data’ in the first
`
`place”) (Watford, J., dissenting).
`
`9
`
`
`

`

`Case: 17-70810, 09/15/2020, ID: 11825368, DktEntry: 233, Page 18 of 101
`
`
`
`EPA’s approach is also too narrow because RQs hinge on acute and chronic
`
`harm levels; they do not account for some sub-lethal pesticidal harms, like behavioral
`
`effects. SBER111-12 (“Pesticides can have sub-lethal effects at multiple levels”);
`
`SBER113 & 116 (examples, e.g., a bird’s ability to attract a mate, or a fish’s ability to
`
`escape predators). “By relying on a scientifically indefensible method that generated
`
`speculative and unreliable estimates, EPA failed to meet its burden.” NFFC, 966
`
`F.3d at 934 (Watford, J., dissenting).
`
`
`
`Second, even applying EPA’s flawed and improperly cabined rubric, what
`
`EPA did still was not “conservative.” NFFC, 966 F.3d at 923. While EPA used a
`
`lower acute toxicity LOC for listed animals, it applied the same LOC of 1 for chronic
`
`effects to all ESA-listed and non-listed animals, and for all listed and non-listed
`
`plants. ER2529-30, ER2105-06. That means, for example, EPA used the same
`
`threshold of chronic harm for the ubiquitous pigeon and the whooping crane, among
`
`the world’s most endangered animals.6
`
`Overall, the EPA system was so flawed that what it delivered was not actually a
`
`meaningful “risk estimate” even for “adverse effects,” SBER168, SBER033, let alone
`
`a conservative one looking for “any chance” of “any possible effect.” Karuk Tribe, 681
`
`
`6 Even for acute animal harm, a lowered harm and mortality threshold is still
`not a legitimate “No Effect” finding. Karuk Tribe, 681 F.3d at 1027.
`10
`
`
`

`

`Case: 17-70810, 09/15/2020, ID: 11825368, DktEntry: 233, Page 19 of 101
`
`F.3d at 1027. EPA relied on a scientifically indefensible model to avoid any expert
`
`consultation, SBER034, the antithesis of the best science, 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2),
`
`and giving endangered species the benefit of the doubt, Conner, 848 F.2d at 1454 &
`
`n.31. These errors rendered its “No Effect” conclusions arbitrary and capricious, and
`
`violated both the ESA’s “May Affect” standard, Karuk Tribe, 681 F.3d at 1027, and
`
`its Best Science mandate, League of Wilderness Defs. v. Connaughton, 752 F.3d 755,
`
`763-64 (9th Cir. 2014) (to pass muster under ESA’s “best science” mandate, agencies
`
`“must support their conclusions with accurate and reliable data” and “consider[] all
`
`relevant data”).
`
`II.
`
`EPA’s “May Affect” Admissions Triggered Consultation.
`
`
`
`The majority admitted that EPA concluded endangered species would be
`
`“exposed to potentially harmful chemicals,” but said “exposure is not a recognition”
`
`of “may affect.” NFFC, 966 F.3d at 924. Maybe elsewhere, but that makes no sense
`
`here: Enlist Duo is a substance intended to kill, sprayed over millions of acres,
`
`known to be toxic to plants, mammals, and birds. That is precisely why the Academy
`
`(and EPA elsewhere) explained that pesticide/habitat overlaps do trigger
`
`consultation. See supra p.7-8 & n.4.
`
`
`
`Moreover, contrary to the majority’s framing, EPA was not just measuring and
`
`acknowledging “exposure.” EPA inexpertly guessed what happens when there is
`
`11
`
`
`

`

`Case: 17-70810, 09/15/2020, ID: 11825368, DktEntry: 233, Page 20 of 101
`
`exposure to a certain amount. ER18 (“[RQs] are calculated by dividing exposure
`
`estimates by ecotoxicity values, both acute and chronic (RQ=Exposure/Toxicity).”
`
`EPA’s calculation does not measure for no toxic effect, just one that does not rise to
`
`EPA’s self-determined, overly narrow, and policy-based level of concern. That is not
`
`EPA’s decision to make unilaterally under the ESA.
`
`
`
`For example, the chronic effect RQ’s for ESA-protected mammals were based
`
`on a toxicity threshold (the No Observed Adverse Effect Level, NOAEL) of 55
`
`mg/kg/day from a rat reproduction study. ER626. The NOAEL use again proves
`
`that EPA’s entire approach was improperly tied to adverse effects. Moreover, the rats
`
`were affected (decreased body weight) at a far lower dose, under EPA’s more stringent
`
`No Observed Effect Level (NOEL) of just 5 mg/kg/day. ER625. Had EPA correctly
`
`used the NOEL instead of the NOAEL, it would have found risks even above its
`
`own “Level of Concern” for a host of ESA-protected mammals. ER657-664 (using
`
`NOAEL in “No Effect” determinations for endangered species in cropfields). “Any
`
`effect” requires consultation, not just those EPA deems toxic enough. Karuk Tribe,
`
`681 F.3d at 1027.
`
`
`
`Elsewhere, the majority acknowledged EPA’s admissions were not just of
`
`“exposure,” but that “Enlist Duo may affect hundreds of protected species.” NFFC,
`
`966 F.3d at 924. See ECF 64-1 at 31-32 (listing record admissions). No matter how
`
`12
`
`
`

`

`Case: 17-70810, 09/15/2020, ID: 11825368, DktEntry: 233, Page 21 of 101
`
`EPA couched these admissions, just as in Karuk Tribe, given their “ordinary
`
`meaning” they should have triggered consultation “as a textual matter.” 681 F.3d at
`
`1027 (mining that “might cause disturbance of surface resources” crossed the “May
`
`Affect” threshold).
`
`III. EPA’s “No Effect” Determinations Were Arbitrary and Capricious.
`
`
`
`Even just using EPA’s flawed approach, EPA still did not actually find “No
`
`Effect,” contrary to the majority’s statement. NFFC, 966 F.3d at 924. Rather in every
`
`one of the mere 23 species-specific assessments,7 EPA actually found a measurable
`
`risk of harm from acute and/or chronic toxicity. See ER654-78; e.g., ER657 (Indiana
`
`Bat: “chronic RQ of 0.31 does not exceed the chronic LOC of 1.0 for listed
`
`species”); ER668 (Attwater’s prairie-chicken: “acute RQ of 0.09 does not exceed the
`
`acute LOC of 0.1”).
`
`
`
`An acute RQ of 0.09 means EPA estimated endangered prairie-chickens could
`
`be exposed to 9% of the 2,4-D dose that would kill 50% of the exposed animals
`
`(LD50). ER2509 (defining Lethal Dose (LD) 50). A chronic RQ of 0.31 means that
`
`
`
`7 For over 500 endangered species near sprayed cropfields, EPA categorically
`made “No Effect” findings with no individual species-specific assessments, despite
`those species initially being “within the action area.” ER649; ER543; ER25. NFFC,
`966 F.3d at 924. Instead, EPA shrank the action area to just the sprayed fields,
`because it concluded the pesticide use instructions would reduce—but not
`eliminate—off-field drift and runoff. See infra pp.15-16.
`13
`
`
`

`

`Case: 17-70810, 09/15/2020, ID: 11825368, DktEntry: 233, Page 22 of 101
`
`endangered bats could be exposed to 31% of the highest exposure level found to not
`
`cause adverse effects (the NOAEL) on reproduction and growth. ER2045, ER657.
`
`The majority did not grapple with any of this evidence.
`
`While the “reasonableness” of these toxic effects might be debatable, it is
`
`undebatable that they are cognizable effects. Karuk Tribe, 681 F.3d at 1027 (“any
`
`chance” of “any possible effect”). EPA may believe they are insignificant or
`
`discountable, but as a matter of law such effects are the definition of “Not Likely To
`
`Adversely Affect,”8 which requires informal consultation and concurrence. 50 C.F.R.
`
`§§ 402.13(a), 402.14(b)(1). By redefining possible effects below its own “Level of
`
`Concern” to “No Effect” EPA unlawfully cut FWS out of the process.
`
`IV. The Decision is Contrary to Karuk Tribe.
`
`
`
`The majority quoted Karuk Tribe’s “No Effect/May Affect” definition, but as
`
`shown above it simply defied that which should have bound it. 681 F.3d at 1027.
`
`The majority’s own language reveals it sanctioned an improper standard. NFFC, 966
`
`F.3d at 905 (claiming EPA properly found “no risk of harm,” not no effect); id. at
`
`924 (EPA made “No Effect” findings for species that were not “at risk”).
`
`
`8 FWS, supra n.2, at xv-xvi (defining “not likely to adversely affect” as
`“discountable, insignific